A blog about News.
|
Appointments stall, valley air still polluted Enough already with "pledges" Focus on educating children Kern keeps luring film crews Keep the legal drinking age at 21 We must change the way we think about growth Labor Day: Save gas, lives Terrorists targeting researchers Protect Panorama Park Ruling protects election system June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 June 06 May 06 April 06 March 06 February 06 January 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 June 05 May 05 April 05 March 05 February 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Low scores? No wonder
PUBLISHED 10/16/07 ---
No wonder California high-school students don’t seem to stack up as well academically, on average, as students from other states. California’s standardized achievement tests are tougher than the standardized tests administered in almost every other state. That might help explain why fewer than half of California’s students score “proficient” in math and English. At least that’s what a new study finds. The Thomas B. Fordham Institution, a Washington-based think tank, compared the statewide exams administered in 26 states and found that California, Massachusetts and South Carolina subject students to the toughest tests. Colorado, Wisconsin and Michigan give the easiest. No Child Left Behind, the federal education act that requires all students to score at grade level by 2014, is the motivating prod that has states evaluating students with such tests. But each state interprets “proficiency” as it sees fit. California sets the bar high. That’s something to be admired, except when it portrays California’s students and education system as lacking. California students have improved their performance on the California Standards Test. But they continue to perform poorly, relative to other states, on the National Assessment for Educational Progress. What’s needed are equitable measurements that put every state on the same playing field. There must be agreement among states as to what the standards should be. Rather than “dumbing down” the California test to a Wisconsin-worthy level of passability, other states’ tests must be “smartened up” to California-worthy levels. Only then will we be able to judge the performance of our children and education system. The attempt to create challenging standards without accounting for an array of inequities and imbalances in our classrooms is a critical flaw in No Child Left Behind. It’s good to set goals. It’s better to accurately assess our students’ progress in meeting those goals. 6 comments from 6 users
1
posted by
sagefever
on Oct 15, 2007 at 05:35 PM
Another thing that would have gone better with a plan. Quite correct that the standard should be level across the states and the higher the better I believe.
posted by
mcdougle
on Oct 15, 2007 at 07:07 PM
Wow! It's nice to see someone writing (albeit five years late) about the "facts" that California teachers have been trying to deal with and present to the public since January 8, 2002 - that's the date that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was signed into law by President Bush. It's called the No Child Left Behind Act but I would not even hazard a guess as to how many children (and teachers) have been "left behind" by that legislation - no matter how well-intentioned it may have been. California teachers have tried to tell parents and community members that in 1999, three years before NCLB, this state passed the Public Schools Accountability Act. We wanted our schools to do better; we wanted educatiors to be accountable; so we established very high standards. The Academic Performance Index set achievement goals for schools at a level that was attainable and the California Department of Education provided support and additional aid to schools that were not attaining their goals. NCLB did not have the infrastructure to establish Adequate Yearly Progress Goals individually for each state, so they appropriated those that each state had already established. (Copying someone else's homework, hmmm, doesn't sound like the government was being a very good role model for students). Some states had standards so low they were always "proficient." Others, like California, set high standards for schools. NCLB did not worry about "equitable measurements that put every state on the same playing field." The worst effect of NCLB is that if even a single group out of all of the subgroups tested at a school does not meet the AYP Goal, draconian measures are taken. First, federal funds are shifted from kids who really need them, to kids whose parents want them to attend another school or want the school district to hire a personal tutor for their child. Finally, if a school is labeled as "failing" by NCLB for five years, it will be "taken over" by the state or converted into a charter school. How is destroying public schools the way to improve public schools? posted by
RoyTullis
on Oct 15, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Can't say the same about the California High School Exit Exam. My Grand daughter Took it her Sophomore year and passed with a high score. She said any eight grader should be able to pass it.
posted by
creepycat
on Oct 16, 2007 at 06:42 AM
Wow! My girl said almost the exact same thing. She said she could have taken exit exam in 8th grade and passed it.
posted by
witbee
on Oct 16, 2007 at 07:39 AM
The article mentions a "new study" but I don't see a proper citation. Being a teacher, I would love to read this study.
posted by
editorials
on Oct 18, 2007 at 05:25 PM
1
Our readers recommend: |
